Confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on oath is illegal, inadmissible, and violates the accused's constitutional protection.

A confession recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. must comply strictly with the prescribed procedure, including the manner of examination under Section 281 Cr.P.C., and oath cannot be administered to an accused. The court held that administering oath is a substantive illegality that undermines voluntariness, creates unlawful pressure, and renders the confession illegal and inadmissible. Section 463 Cr.P.C. cannot cure this defect because it applies only to irregularities in recording or proof, not to a violation going to the legality of the confession itself. The court also held that oath-taking in this setting amounts to testimonial compulsion and violates Article 20(3).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a confession recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on oath is fatal and can be protected by Section 463 Cr.P.C., and whether the earlier view in Arjun Rai remains good law; (ii) Whether merely administering oath to an accused while recording a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes the confession involuntary and fatal; (iii) Whether administering oath to an accused while recording a confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a confession recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on oath is fatal and can be protected by Section 463 Cr.P.C., and whether the earlier view in Arjun Rai remains good law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 164 Cr.P.C. requires confessions to be recorded in the manner provided for examination of an accused under Section 281 Cr.P.C. and does not permit administration of oath to an accused. The protection in Section 463 Cr.P.C. is confined to defects in recording or proof of compliance where the confession was otherwise duly made; it cannot cure a substantive illegality that goes to the voluntariness and legality of the confession itself. Administration of oath to an accused was treated as a concealed threat and as an impermissible departure from the mandatory procedure.

Conclusion: The confession recorded on oath is fatal and cannot be saved by Section 463 Cr.P.C.; the earlier view in Arjun Rai is affirmed as good law.

Issue (ii): Whether merely administering oath to an accused while recording a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes the confession involuntary and fatal.

Analysis: The Court held that the very act of administering oath to an accused while recording a confession is sufficient to raise a serious inference against voluntariness, because it introduces an unlawful pressure inconsistent with the protective purpose of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the right of the accused to remain silent. Since the statutory safeguards are designed to ensure that the statement is made freely, the illegality of oath-taking undermines the confession at its core.

Conclusion: Yes. Administering oath, by itself, may render the confession involuntary and fatal.

Issue (iii): Whether administering oath to an accused while recording a confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court held that compulsion includes testimonial compulsion and that an accused cannot be made to give self-incriminatory information under a procedure prohibited by law. Since oath is not lawful against an accused in a confessionary setting and has the effect of compelling a self-incriminating statement, it infringes the constitutional guarantee.

Conclusion: Yes. Administering oath to an accused while recording a confession violates Article 20(3).

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that a confession of an accused recorded on oath under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is illegal, inadmissible, constitutionally impermissible, and not curable under Section 463 Cr.P.C.; the matter was then sent back for further disposal in the main appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession must be recorded strictly in the manner prescribed by Section 164 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C.; administration of oath to an accused is an unlawful and substantive illegality that violates Article 20(3) and cannot be cured as a mere irregularity under Section 463 Cr.P.C.

---